Author: admin

OK, well the Queensland Government has been quite helpful in setting out what rules apply for Restricted Businesses https://www.health.qld.gov.au/system-governance/legislation/cho-public-health-directions-under-expanded-public-health-act-powers/business-activity-undertaking-direction#schedule1 Unfortunately what is or isn’t a Restricted Business is not so obvious (see the schedule in the directions above) and there is very little guidance for Non-restricted Businesses (essentially everything else). There does not appear to be any direction for operators of non-restricted businesses – eg professional offices – allowing them to require proof of vaccination of customers. That said, those operators have duties of care to employees and patrons. There is a tension between those obligations and the entitlement of customers and clients to privacy, also risks in the way in which a face mask mandate is imposed https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/covid-19-and-human-rights/face-mask-guide-for-business What would be useful would be for a Public Health direction setting out a list of what an Essential Business can and cannot do, in one place, rather than running the risk of falling into a trap while having the best of intentions. One can only hope.

Automatic renewal clauses in agreements have always risked being deemed unfair in particular when linked to early termination clauses. Recent ACCC media releases would suggest the focus is continuing. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/audio-company-please-hold-removes-alleged-unfair-contract-terms-for-small-business-customers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/suppliers-of-cami-and-itutor-home-tutoring-software-admit-to-using-unfair-contract-terms

The plaintiff does not seem to be having a particularly happy experience with this litigation, makes for an enjoyable (and brief) read. https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2021/293

That sounds pretty dramatic, doesn’t it? Well it kind of is, although this is not necessarily new law. But it does shine a spotlight on the fairly common asset protection strategy of the assets of a marriage being put in the name of a “safe” spouse, to keep them insulated against claims arising from the activities of the other spouse. In August 2021 the Full Court of the Federal Court, in Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac (No 7) [2021] FCA 249, found that a property held in the name of the wife alone was in fact owned 50% by the husband (with the result that the interest is available for this creditors). This decision considered two presumptions at law. The first is the presumption that where two parties contribute toward the cost of acquiring a property but title is put in the name of only one, then it is presumed that the registered owner holds a share in trust for the other party. The second is what is known as the presumption of advancement – where there is a presumption of a gift being made in certain circumstances, eg as between husband and wife (but curiously not necessarily in reverse) and as between parent and child. If the presumption applied, then the money provided by the husband toward the purchase price would be considered a gift, and the first presumption is rebutted (i.e. does not apply). In this decision, in the absence of evidence of the husband as to what he intended (and no mention of a contemporaneous deed of gift), and having regard to his contributions to the price (including becoming liable on borrowings) the Full Court found that the presumption was rebutted, with the result that the property is half owned by the husband. For advice in relation to property ownership, please contact our property lawyers Peter Muller, Jessica Murray, and Megan Hanneman at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au